All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) An act written as the act of a dual assistance in the indictment of this case by misunderstanding the facts about the dual assistance and misapprehending the legal principles, is merely a civilian unification event, not an act of assistance with the caution and intent of the North Korean system, and there is no clear risk of substantial harm to the national existence and security or the fundamental democratic order.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that held that only F is a "act of dual assistance" for all events conducted by F solely on the ground that it was judged as a past dual organization, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles as to dual assistance and dual assistance.

2) The term “AO” among the documents held by the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the possession of a pro rata (guilty part) is a historical historical record with the F’s history organized, and there is no aptitude, and the remainder of the books have been kept as data for the unification campaign by the Defendant, and there is no ground to recognize the dual purpose thereof.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. Prosecutor 1) The part that the lower court acquitted the Defendant as to the possession of a pro rata expressive material (a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) includes active and aggressive intent threatening the fundamental democratic order by praiseing the North Korean system, etc., and all of the expressive materials appraised by North Korea or by a written judgment, written appraisal, etc.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B) Even if there are evidence other than evidence by communication-restricting measures against BD with respect to the point of meeting and communication, the Defendant has no pro-friendly relationship with AT and private and courtesy communications, and the F Joint Chiefs of Meeting is held.